Oops, missed your point. I changed the argument slightly to go back to the OP. I'm far less concerned about a final sub or who should have guarded who when the glaring flaw to my mind is the half court offense battle. The Clips have one, we don't, and that's the real tale of the tape in a tight game.

I completely agree, but I also think you're missing my point about this particular game- I don't care about who plays better defense on Blake Griffin, I care about who plays better defense on the pick and roll. For the second game in a row the Clippers relied almost exclusively on putting Al Jefferson in the pick and roll down the stretch and burning him with it. They burned us with it again on their final play of the game. It should've been obvious that they were going to go to it, and if we'd have had Favors on the court instead of Jefferson, it would've had a substantially less chance to be successful.

But that was the point of the entire thread: there was one specific sequence where our coach was presented with options. Did you agree with his choice?

I was only clarifying that I think the discussion of whether Al was subbed for Favors was insignificant relative to the offensive problems. That cost us the game, not one play.

As to the OP, yes I think Ty should have subbed Favors. To go one step further, Favors is absolutely our best defensive player and I rarely if ever think it's a bad idea to sub him in. To play devil's advocate, a million things could have gone wrong with Favors defending a Chris Paul orchestrated PnR as well. But I think Ty got too cute in his decision making for sure.

My point in making this thread actually wasn't even to debate Ty's decision, it was to point out how mind-numbingly stupid his reason for it was: For the ensuing offensive possession. Makes no sense no matter how you look at it. It's pretty horrifying that this guy is our head coach.

I completely agree, but I also think you're missing my point about this particular game- I don't care about who plays better defense on Blake Griffin, I care about who plays better defense on the pick and roll. For the second game in a row the Clippers relied almost exclusively on putting Al Jefferson in the pick and roll down the stretch and burning him with it. They burned us with it again on their final play of the game. It should've been obvious that they were going to go to it, and if we'd have had Favors on the court instead of Jefferson, it would've had a substantially less chance to be successful.

If you can rewatch the game on DVR, you should. Here's how they went after Tinsley threw away a pass that led to a break and the Clipper lead:

Clipper possession 1 (2:15): Only PnR was run at Sap/Griffin. Well defended possession all the way, Clips even get an extra possession and Paul misses a straight jumper (over Tinsley).

Clipper possession 2 (1:35): This was a PnR directed at Al, Paul splits it, Al reaches for a foul, and he and Hayward argue. There was obviously a disagreement as to how it was supposed to be defended. Al clearly thought Hayward messed up (maybe by going over the screen), Hayward didn't think he messed up, and Al was so vehement he pointed to the bench. Whatever the case, it's not like Paul was going sideways when he got fouled.

Clipper possession 3 (0:56): PnR directed at Al and defended perfectly by both he and Hayward. Ends with Paul missing a 3 after their offense couldn't produce a shot.

Clipper possession 4 (0:23): PnR directed at Al, but not really. It was actually a beautifully designed fake. Jordan came up like he was going to set a screen and dropped into the lane. Al reacted quickly and defended him. Hayward got faked out of his shorts when Paul stepped back for the dagger jumper. I really don't blame Hayward because it was a gorgeous move by Paul that nobody could defend.

Clipper possession 5 was the Al foul, ballgame.

From 7 minutes down when Paul came back in, ran 1 PnR against Al/Hayward that didn't work. The rest of his PnR's (and only like 2) were run at Sap/Griffin. He got Hayward on a reach, but otherwise they weren't very effective.